Jim Macklin wrote:
The author of the newspaper hit piece was an idiot. There
are problems, poor maintenance and bad management lead the
list in my mind. But he focused on how many FAA inspectors
and the way they are assigned. Also, he bemoaned the fact
that a C310 isn't icing approved.
Pilots know how to handle that issue, don't take off, go
somewhere else and land. It is just not possible to have
all cargo flown by two pilot crews in a 737 under part 121,
which is the "answer" that the Miami Herald author seems to
thing is the solution.

The Miami Herald is a rag looking for sensation, not facts.


I strongly suggest you go back and read it again. He definitely exposed the
flaunting of the required rest rules and poor maintenance. The point of the
limited number of qualified FAA inspectors is that there aren't enough to do the
job. The results are paper inspections.

From your comments, I'd have to guess you've never been a freight dog. I have
and I thought the man hit the nail on the head. Don't fly? Your delay better
be damned short or you're going to be looking for another job. And they are few
and far between. When I was flying cargo, they all seemed to be in East BF,
Iowa. I live on the east coast and want to stay here.

If I lost an engine within 200 miles of my destination, I was expected to fly to
the destination; not somewhere else. The company didn't get paid if it went
somewhere else; at least that's what they told me. While management might state
one policy, the reality was generally quite different. Mission completion was
Job One.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE